It seems as if there is a new cannabinoid product coming out every five minutes. Scratch that – it seems like there is a new cannabinoid coming out every five minutes. After CBD, it was CBG and CBN, then the deltas, and then, well, it’s hard to keep track. Today, every time I research these new cannabinoids, I inevitably see ones I have never heard of before.

People constantly ask me how X cannabinoid will be regulated. What I generally say is that in most cases, there will be no federal or state law that specifically deals with that cannabinoid. But there are are basically three things I think are important to consider here.

In a post on August 3, 2023, hemp lawyer Rod Kight analyzed new cannabinoid H4 CBD – one I’d never stumbled into before. In that post, he analyzed two of the key questions at issue – first, whether H4 CBD is deemed “THC” under the Controlled Substances Act; and second, whether H4 CBD could qualify as a new dietary ingredient (NDI) under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). I think it is also key to consider state law and whether it imposes restrictions beyond the CSA and NDI process. I’m sure Rod thinks about this too, although it’s hard to cover everything in a short blog post!

Today I want to talk about the NDI issue and expand on it a little further. If someone wants to put a new substance (say, a newly discovered/developed cannabinoid) into a dietary supplement), it will be considered an NDI. The manufacturer will have to provide FDA with information that the NDI is safe. My understanding is that folks tried this in the early days with CBD, but that the agency rejected these efforts.

But CBD isn’t the best analogy for some of these newer cannabinoids – especially for the intoxicating and/or synthetic ones. For one, CBD isn’t intoxicating. For another, it was approved in the form of Epidiolex®, meaning it couldn’t be a new dietary ingredient under the so-called Drug Exclusion Rule. I don’t want to go down that rabbit hole today, but you can read about it here if interested.

So if you want to know how FDA might handle something like this, a good place to start is with kratom. Kratom is in many senses very different from cannabinoids – it comes from Southeast Asia and has effects that are comparable to opioids. It’s not new or synthetic, as are a lot of the newer cannabinoids flooding the market. But, it can be intoxicating. And it is not on the CSA (the DEA tried and then backed off efforts to schedule it in 2016). And it can reportedly be dangerous, although I’m sure some of you would point out that some of the vape deaths a few years ago were reportedly caused by synthetic cannabinoids.

But FDA isn’t deterred. Here is what it says on its website currently:

Kratom is not appropriate for use as a dietary conventional supplement. FDA has concluded from available information, including scientific data, that kratom is a new dietary ingredient for which there is inadequate information to provide reasonable assurance that such ingredient does not present a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury and, therefore, dietary supplements that are or contain kratom are adulterated under section 402(f)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act. Further, FDA has determined that kratom, when added to food, is an unsafe food additive within the meaning of section 409; food containing an unsafe food additive, such as kratom, is adulterated under section 402(a)(2)(C)(i). Based on these determinations by FDA, kratom is not lawfully marketed as a dietary supplement and cannot be lawfully added to conventional foods.

That’s a lot to unpack. Basically, according to FDA, there isn’t sufficient information to show that kratom is safe, so it cannot be an NDI. And as we’ll come back to in a moment, this is quite an understatement of FDA’s position, which is that kratom is incredibly harmful.

Turning back to the above quote, let’s hone in on the word “adulterated.” The import, sale, distribution, etc. of adulterants or adulterated products can lead to civil and criminal penalties galore under the FDCA. FDA is pretty aggressive when it comes to kratom, as opposed to its occasional warning letter for CBD. Take this FDA press release from April 2023 for example:

On Wednesday the U.S. Marshals, at the FDA’s request, seized more than 250,000 units of dietary supplements and bulk dietary ingredients that are or contain kratom, including over 1000 kilograms of bulk kratom. . . The seized products are worth approximately $3 million. The U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of the FDA, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma alleging, among other things, that kratom is a new dietary ingredient for which there is inadequate information to provide reasonable assurance that it does not present a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury; therefore, dietary supplements and bulk dietary ingredients that are or contain kratom are adulterated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

FDA will still have to prove its case in court, but the point here is that it IS GOING to court. In the last five years, how many times have we seen that with CBD?

Now, you may be thinking to yourself, “kratom is a lot different from cannabinoids.” I agree. I’m not here to say things are apples to apples. But what I can say is that the NDI process effectively puts the onus on manufacturers to prove something is safe, with FDA having ultimate gatekeeping authority. Just look at how FDA talks about delta-8 THC, an intoxicating cannabinoid, and it’s not hard to see the agency taking the same or even a kratom-esque position with respect to lab-created, intoxicating cannabinoids. If Congress doesn’t address this in the upcoming farm bill, expect FDA to.

One last point about kratom that could inform the future of cannabinoid regulation – states often fill a vacuum created by the federal government’s inaction. When DEA opted not to schedule kratom, a number of states did schedule the substance (and a number went the other way, passing various kratom consumer protection acts). Actual consumers have no idea about the patchwork of directly opposite state laws, so we see things like people buying kratom legally in Florida, driving home to Alabama where it is illegal, and getting arrested along the way. Check out this Tweet thread for an example of some of the shocking potential prosecutions that are being reported based on this example alone.

This is relevant to the cannabinoid market, because the same thing is going to start to happen at the state level. We saw it happen years ago with states banning smokable hemp. Then it was delta-8 THC bans. This is going to keep happening. And people are going to keep getting arrested.

The bottom line here is that the future of hemp cannabinoid regulations is going to be messy. Nobody knows exactly what things will look like after the next farm bill, but my guess is that this Congress doesn’t do a great job (shocking prediction, right?) and we get left with occasional FDA intervention and a wildly shifting state-level framework, just like with kratom. Let’s hope I’m wrong and Congress buttons this issue up right – but I don’t have high hopes on this one.

• SEO Powered Content & PR Distribution. Get Amplified Today.
• PlatoData.Network Vertical Generative Ai. Empower Yourself. Access Here.
• PlatoAiStream. Web3 Intelligence. Knowledge Amplified. Access Here.
• PlatoESG. Automotive / EVs, Carbon, CleanTech, Energy, Environment, Solar, Waste Management. Access Here.
• BlockOffsets. Modernizing Environmental Offset Ownership. Access Here.
• Source: https://harrisbricken.com/cannalawblog/cannabinoid-folks-pay-attention-to-kratom/